Re: [SQL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan@nsd.ca>
From: Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan@nsd.ca>
To: josh@agliodbs.com
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>, Roland Roberts <roland@astrofoto.org>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Date: 2002-09-30T18:37:45Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-general, pgsql-sql
How can you make a difference between now('statement'), and
now('immediate').
To me they are the same thing. Why not simply now() for transaction, and
now('CLOCK') or better yet system_clock() or clock() for curent time.
JLL
Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> > I'd be happier with the whole thing if anyone had exhibited a convincing
> > use-case for statement timestamp. So far I've not seen any actual
> > examples of situations that are not better served by either transaction
> > timestamp or true current time. And the spec is perfectly clear that
> > CURRENT_TIMESTAMP does not mean true current time...
>
> Are we still planning on putting the three different versions of now() on the
> TODO? I.e.,
> now('transaction'),
> now('statement'), and
> now('immediate')
> With now() = now('transaction')?
>
> I still think it's a good idea, provided that we have some easy means to
> determine now('statement').
>
> --
> -Josh Berkus
> Aglio Database Solutions
> San Francisco
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org